The Types of Communication Strategies Used by Speaking Class Students with Different Communication Apprehension Levels in English Department of Petra

Christian University, Surabaya

Nani I. Tiono (e-mail: nitiono@peter.petra.ac.id)Agatha Sylvia

English Department, Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian University,Surabaya, Indonesia.

Abstract

This article reports on a study that aims to find out the types of Communication Strategies used and mostly used by students with high and low levels of Communication Apprehension and whether students with high level of Communication Apprehension used more numbers of Communication Strategies. The data were collected from a created classroom in which the subjects were asked to retell a pictorial story and a pictorial instruction. The results showed that students with high Communication Apprehension level used more numbers of Communication Strategies.

Key Words: anxiety, language anxiety, communication apprehension, Communication Strategies

INTRODUCTION

Language Anxiety can bring about several problems in the process of language

learning since it can hinder the students from mastering the language; for example, an

anxious learner may avoid delivering difficult messages, avoid being involved in class

discussion, reduce their performance in public communication, et cetera. Anxiety

refers to concern and fear, especially about what might happen (Oxford dictionary,

1995, p. 16) and language anxiety refers to a type of anxiety unique to second

language learning (Horwitz et al., 1991, p. 25). To speak or to perform something

using foreign language in a classroom situation can cause students’ anxiety because

they have to perform unfamiliar sounds in front of an audience, or because teacher

and other students ask questions and give corrections or comments excessively.

Once, a student of the English Department of Petra Christian University was

asked about her feelings towards language skill activities in class. Her answer was

surprising because she said that the most terrifying language skill class was speaking

class since in this lesson she was forced to speak so that she always panicked. What

she did was avoiding speaking although she had some ideas in her mind. She kept

silent since she always got stuck in the middle of the conversation. Some students

might even escape from class.

The highly anxious students usually construct learning strategies, such as learning

certain tricks that help them to keep the conversation going on, in order to be able to

perform well in their oral activities. Those strategies are called Communication

Strategies. A Communication Strategy is defined as “a systematic technique

employed by a speaker to express his or her meaning when faced with some difficulty

(Corder, 1981, in Dornyei, 1995, p. 56). It can be in the form of using circumlocution,

fillers, code switching, et cetera (Dornyei, 1995, p. 58). In other words,

Communication Strategies can help the anxious students to be able to perform well in

oral performance since they do their best to be able to give clear message to the

listener.

Daly (1991) coined a term “Communication Apprehension” to identify anxiety of

speaking a foreign language, which is defined as “the fear or anxiety an individual

feels about orally communicating (p. 3). Communication Apprehension is one of the

types of Language Anxiety which a person experiences in learning a second or

foreign language. Horwitz et al. (1991, p. 28) stated that students with high

communication apprehension tended to avoid delivering a difficult message, while

students with low communication apprehension attempted different types of

Communication Strategies to be able to deliver their message.

Communication Apprehension in this research was divided into two levels, high

and low Communication Apprehension levels. Then the types of Communication

Strategies used and mostly used by students with high and low levels of

Communication Apprehension were investigated. It was assumed that students with

high communication apprehension would use more Communication Strategies

because if they were very anxious they might hesitate too much so that they forgot the

words they intended to say and made many errors.

The subjects of this research were Speaking II and VI students of the English

Department of Petra Christian University. Speaking VI students were chosen because

speaking VI is the last level of speaking class in the English Department of Petra

Christian University and it was assumed that students of speaking VI might not

experience high communication apprehension since they had experienced difficulties

from the previous speaking classes and they had mastered communication using

English well.

2

Therefore, the focus of this research was to find out the types of

Communication Strategies used and mostly used by different levels of

Communication Apprehension, high and low Communication Apprehension levels

and to find out if students with high level of Communication Apprehension used more

numbers of Communication Strategies than those with low level of Communication

Apprehension.

THEORIES

According to Horwitz et al. (1991), language anxiety means the feeling of

nervousness, worry, or uneasiness experienced by foreign language students,

especially English Foreign Language (EFL) students. Many students, especially in a

classroom situation, find that learning a foreign language is stressful especially if they

have to perform something using foreign language due to the fear of making mistakes,

high feelings of self-consciousness, and the desire to be perfect when speaking (Foss

et al., 1991). Difficulties in speaking can create more anxiety than other tasks, such as

reading, writing, and listening. There are three divisions of language anxiety: test

anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, and communication apprehension.

“Communication apprehension is the fear or anxiety an individual feels about

orally communicating.” (Daly, 1991, p. 3). It usually occurs in a classroom situation.

Students may avoid talking in foreign language because they are unprepared,

uninterested, lacking confidence, and because they are afraid of communicating. The

characteristics of a person with high communication apprehension level are they have

difficulties in concentrating, become forgetful, and sweat much (p.3). If there are

conditions which force a person who is highly apprehensive to become involved in

communication with others, he/she normally will feel uncomfortable, nervous, and

embarrassed, and will appear shy to others (McCroskey et al., 1985). The most

commonly used measure is made by McCroskey et al. (1985) which is called Personal

Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA). It consists of 24 items related to

communication apprehension. Students experiencing high Communication

Apprehension are those who score high in PRCA, while students with low

Communication Apprehension level are those who score low in PRCA.

High Communication Apprehensive students are likely to avoid classes which

involve communication. They tend to be silent, do not want to be involved in class

discussion, and are unlikely to raise their hands to either ask or answer questions. On

3

the other hand, students with low Communication Apprehension will get involved in

class discussion, sit in front of the class, choose to discuss a difficult topic in class.

Horwitz (1991) also stated that “Anxiety about speaking a language can affect the

quality of oral language production, making individuals appear less fluent than they

really are” (p. 56).

“Anxiety can affect the Communication Strategies students employ in language

class. That is, the more anxious student tends to avoid delivering difficult or personal

messages in the target language.” (Horwitz et al., 1991, p. 28). Students who concern

too much on their performance may become anxious when speaking in front of others.

They sometimes make errors due to their nervousness, lack of vocabulary and hesitate

too much. In addition, they may try to compensate for their errors, lack of vocabulary

and hesitation by doing Communication Strategies. Therefore, Communication

Apprehension influences Communication Strategies they use.

A Communication Strategy is defined as “a systematic technique employed by a

speaker to express his or her meaning when faced with some difficulty” (Corder,

1981, in Dornyei, 1995, p. 56). Communication Strategies help the learners to keep on

using the language in communicating with others. According to Dornyei (1995), there

are twelve (12) types of Communication Strategies:

1. Message abandonment: the strategy of leaving message unfinished because of

language difficulties. For example: a learner says “he took the wrong way in

mm…” (He/she does not continue his/her utterance).

2. Topic avoidance: the strategy where learners try not to talk about concepts

which they find it difficult to express. For example: a learner avoids saying

certain words or sentence because he/she does not know the English terms or

forget the English terms.

3. Circumlocution: the strategy used by learners in which they describe or

paraphrase the target object or action. For example: if a learner does not know

the word corkscrew, he/she replaces it by saying ‘the thing that you use to

open the bottle’.

4. Approximation: the strategy in which a learner uses an alternative term to

express the meaning of the target lexical item as closely as possible. For

example: ship for sail boat; pipe for water pipe

4

5. Use of all-purpose words: This is the strategy when learners expand an empty

lexical item to context where certain words are lacking. For example: the

overuse of the words thing, stuff, make, do, what-do-you-call-it, what-is-it.

6. Word coinage: a learner creates an L2 word based on his/her knowledge of

morphological rules. For example: vegetarianist for vegetarian. (vegetarianist

is not stated in the dictionary).

7. Use of nonlinguistic means: a learner uses non-linguistic resources such as

mime, gesture, facial expression, and sound imitation to help him/her in

expressing the meaning. For example: a learner uses his/her hands and acts

like flying to refer to birds.

8. Literal translation: the strategy in which learners translate a lexical item, an

idiom, or a structure from their L1 to L2. For example: do not enter sign for no

entry sign.

9. Foreignizing: learners use L1 word by adjusting it to L2 phonologically. For

example: a learner does not know the word tap, he/she uses the L1 word, that

is kran but with L2 pronunciation, so he/she says kren.

10. Code switching: the strategy in which learners use their L1 word with L2

pronunciation. For example: if a learner does not know the word baki, he/she

will say ‘baki’ with L2 pronunciation.

11. Appeal for help: the strategy where the students ask other students or teacher

for help because they do not know or forget some words, structures, or idioms.

for example: a learner may ask his/her friend by saying ‘What do you

call…..?’

12. Use of fillers/hesitation devices: a learner may use filling words to fill pause

and to gain time to think. For example: well, as a matter of fact, now let me

see. Wajnryb (1987) added the examples of fillers such as I think, you know,

you see, um, mm, ah, sort of, OK, right, really.

METHODOLOGY

The approach of this study was qualitative. The data contained Communication

Strategies used by EFL students of the English Department. The subjects were thirty

(30) students from Speaking II and Speaking VI classes. 15 of them (7 from Speaking

II and 8 from Speaking VI) had high communication apprehension level and the other

15 subjects (5 from Speaking II and 10 from Speaking VI) had low communication

5

apprehension level. The distribution of the high and low communication apprehension

levels of the subjects was determined after they filled in 100 PRCA-24 (Personal

Report of Communication Apprehension) forms.

The instruments used were: a tape recorder to record the subjects when they were

retelling pictorial stories given to them; a pictorial story telling and a pictorial

instruction as the tasks (the pictorial story was about a young man who wanted to

have a driving-license, and he had to follow a driving test. However, that young man

made so many mistakes in the street so that he failed to get a driving license and he

was arrested by the police for making so many mistakes in the driving test. The

pictorial instruction was about how to make potato salad); Personal Report of

Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) by McCroskey et al. (1985) in Mejias et

al. (1991) which was composed of twenty four statements concerning feelings about

communication with other people and indicated the level of anxiety the subjects feel

about participating in various oral communication situations; and Retrospective

Questionnaire to find additional strategies such as topic avoidance, message

abandonment, and appeal for help.

DATA AND SOURCE OF DATA

The data were collected from an oral presentation in English done by the subjects

of Speaking II and VI in a created classroom situation in which the subjects had to

speak in front of other people they do not know as the audience or the listeners. This

created classroom situation was chosen so that they speak naturally – as if they were

in a real classroom - and qualified data could be collected.

PROCEDURES OF DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

100 PRCA-24 (Personal Report of Communication Apprehension) forms were

distributed to twelve students of Speaking II class and eighteen students of speaking

VI class of the English Department, Petra Christian University. Seven subjects from

Speaking II and eight subjects from Speaking VI had high communication

apprehension level and the other fifteen subjects (five from Speaking II and ten from

Speaking VI) had low communication apprehension level. There was audience or

listeners of about ten people who listened to the subjects while they were performing

the tasks in front of the class. The audience was not allowed to interrupt or ask

questions in the middle of the subjects’ performance, but they were allowed to help

6

when the subjects appealed for help. The subjects had to come in the classroom one

by one. After the subject had got the explanation of what they should do, they started

telling a story and giving directions in English based on the pictures given to them.

The subjects were taped while they were doing the tasks and the recording of each

subject lasted about 10-20 minutes. After each subject had done the two tasks, he/she

was given a retrospective questionnaire which required him/her to write down the

difficulties they had faced during their performance and the ways they overcame it.

The whole process of each subject lasted about 20-25 minutes.

The first procedure of data analysis was transcribing the data. Then collecting the

Communication Strategies produced, classifying them into the types of

Communication Strategies and identifying the types of Communication Strategies

based on the high and low communication apprehension levels of the subjects.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

Findings and Discussions on the Types of Communication Strategies Used by

Subjects with High Communication Apprehension

There were twelve (12) types of Communication Strategies found in this section:

message abandonment, topic avoidance, circumlocution, approximation, using

nonlinguistic means, literal translation, code switching, appealing for help, using

fillers, using wrong terms, self correction, and repetition. However, three

Communication Strategies namely foreignizing, word coinage and using all purpose

words were not found. Based on the data analysis, additional Communication

Strategies called using wrong terms, self correction and repetition were found

.

Table 1: Types of Communication Strategies Used by Subjects withHigh Communication Apprehension Level

Sub-ject

Types of Communication StrategiesMA TA C A UW UN LT CS AH UF SC R

1 - 3 1 8 1 2 - 10 11 10 2 92 1 2 2 7 8 3 - - 2 5 4 103 4 5 1 11 - - - 3 3 7 8 204 1 1 1 10 5 3 1 3 10 7 10 165 1 5 1 15 3 3 - - - 4 4 116 - 3 1 11 - 4 - 4 4 8 2 57 4 4 2 8 2 - - - 3 2 5 88 1 7 2 7 3 - - - 4 3 3 29 - 4 2 11 3 4 - - 28 4 4 21

7

10 1 5 - 12 3 2 - 4 2 6 2 1511 1 3 - 11 5 2 - 5 8 7 10 1312 - 5 - 10 7 4 1 1 4 4 12 2113 - - - 11 - 3 - 12 - 9 1 3014 - 5 2 4 4 2 1 - 3 6 5 715 - 4 2 10 1 5 3 2 3 12 7 8

Total 14 56 17 146 45 37 6 44 85 94 79 196% 1.7 6.81 2.06 17.76 5.47 4.5 0.73 5.35 10.34 11.43 9.61 23.84

MA : Message Abandonment LT : Literal TranslationTA : Topic/Concept Avoidance CS : Code SwitchingC : Circumlocution AH : Appeal for HelpA : Approximation UF : Using FillersUW : Using Wrong Terms SC : Self CorrectionUN : Use of Nonlinguistic Means R : Repetition

Repetition here got the highest number with the percentage of 23.84%, or as

many as 196. The following is an example of repetition: when a subject intended to

say ‘turn on the engine’ but she did not know or forgot the English of it, she gained

time to think by using repetition words like “he starts to… he starts to… he starts

to… up the machine”. In this strategy, the subjects repeated the same word or words

to gain time to think. They spent too much time to think of certain words, phrases or

sentences because they forgot words or structures they actually knew. In other words,

they could not concentrate well due to their nervousness. Thus repetition here was

used to avoid silence while thinking of the appropriate terms so that communication –

in this case the oral task – seemed to run smoothly.

The total number of approximation used by subjects with high communication

apprehension is 146 or equals 17.76%. For example, a subject said circle road to refer

to ‘roundabout’. It might be that subjects with high level of communication

apprehension found difficulties in retelling certain objects in the tasks due to their

apprehension. In this example, the subject tried to overcome the difficulty of finding

the term ‘roundabout’ by using “an alternative term to express the meaning of the

target lexical item as closely as possible” (Dornyei, 1995, p. 56). Since the shape of

the ‘roundabout’ was round or circle and it was on the road, the subject just created

her own term by saying ‘circle road’.

Using fillers was the third strategy mostly used by the subjects, with the

percentage of 11.43%, or the same as 94. The example of using fillers is “there was

uh… no entry sign”. The aim of this strategy was the same as repetition, that is to

8

gain time to think while trying to make the oral task run smoothly at the same time,

but in this strategy they used hesitation device such as mm and uh. The subjects might

forget words or utterances they actually knew, or they could not concentrate well due

to their apprehension or anxiety in speaking in front of the classroom.

Appeal for help got the percentage of 10.34%. The example of appeal for help

is “perempatan tu apa?”. The subjects used this strategy mainly because they lacked

vocabulary or forgot some English words due to their nervousness. In addition,

possibly because these subjects were afraid of making mistakes, they might think that

it would be better to ask someone else than to produce the wrong words themselves.

Self correction, which was the additional strategy found in this study, got the

percentage of 9.61%. This is the strategy in which the subjects corrected the utterance

they had made before so that the listener could understand what he/she actually

meant; for example “a man and an instruction… I mean a man and an instructor”.

Self correction might happen because subjects with high level of communication

apprehension might be so nervous to speak in front of the listeners so that they made

quite a number of mistakes while retelling the stories; but since they realized they had

made mistakes after they produced the words or phrases, they corrected their mistakes

immediately. Based on the data, almost all of the mistakes in this self correction

strategy were grammatical mistakes such as prepositions mistakes (he turn out eh he

turn on the car), verbs mistakes (he go … he goes), and article mistakes (pass the

policeman … a policeman). This showed that actually the subjects knew the correct

grammatical forms they should have produced. Self correction strategy also happened

because the subjects wanted to make clear the phrases or terms they already uttered so

that they felt it was necessary to add a word modifier. It could be seen from these

examples: the exam … the driving exam, the driver … the other driver, the making

of salad … potato salad, square … little square. The other reason of having self

correction strategy was because the subjects thought the vocabulary they chose was

wrong or not appropriate so that they changed their words; for example: he stops on

his machine eh … gasoline; gas station … gasoline station; with the gas … eh with

petrol; into the fridge … refrigerator. Actually what the subjects did for self

correction here was mostly by changing the words with the synonyms; it might be

because by doing this, the subjects could have time to think of the next thing they had

to say.

9

Topic or concept avoidance got the total of 56, as much as 6.81%. The

subjects in this strategy avoided telling the words or sentences which were difficult

for them. Possibly, these subjects were afraid of making mistakes; thus, they preferred

to avoid saying the words, sentences or concepts rather than to express them and just

went on to the next words, sentences or concepts.

Using wrong terms, which is the new strategy found in this study, got the

percentage of 5.47%. The subjects used other words, it could be English or

Indonesian, but with different meaning from the target words. The example, to refer to

‘ sauce pan’, for example, they said stainless wok. The low number of using wrong

terms strategy used by these subjects indicate that only some of them were willing to

replace the target words into the different or wrong words due to the fear of making

mistakes in front of the listener or due to their thought that this strategy could not

overcome their problems while most of them preferred to use repetition in which they

can gain time to think the best words or terms or sentences.

Code switching terms got about 5.35%. The subjects just said the concepts or

words in Indonesian, such as perempatan to refer to ‘crossroad’ and panci to refer to

‘sauce pan’. It could be because subjects with high level of Communication

Apprehension tended to avoid delivering difficult words or sentences owing to the shy

feeling or worry of making mistakes; thus they switched the English words or

sentences into their native language, which is Indonesian and since the listeners were

all Indonesians, they thought it would not be a problem though they just used

Indonesian words.

The next strategy with the percentage of 4.5% was using nonlinguistic means

such as mime, gesture, facial expression, and sound imitation to help the subjects in

expressing the meaning; for example, a subject rounded her fingers to refer to

‘roundabout’. So, while they were retelling the story, they used mime or gesture to

help them in expressing certain things.

Circumlocution in which the subjects described or paraphrased the target object or

action got 2.06%; for example, “make the potato lost its skin” to refer to the word

‘peel’. Although the phrases produced here sounded strange, they could still be

understood; therefore, the subjects used this strategy. The number of message

abandonment used was 14 or equal to 1.7%; for example, a subject did not finish her

sentence by saying “he fail to…”. It might be that they lacked vocabulary, found

10

difficulties in arranging the structure of their utterance, were confused to continue due

to their nervousness, and were worried of making mistakes.

The least strategy used by subjects with high communication apprehension was

literal translation. For example, a subject said ‘lamp street’ or ‘lamp road’ to refer to

‘street lamp’. In this case, the subject got the term by translating the Indonesian

phrase ‘lampu jalan’ word by word and became lamp (‘lampu’) street/road (‘jalan’).

The low numbers of using nonlinguistic means, circumlocution, message

abandonment, and literal translation could be interpreted that these strategies do not

help them in getting the target language.

Findings and Discussions on the Types of Communication Strategies Used by

Subjects with Low Communication Apprehension

There were thirteen (13) Communication Strategies used by these subjects:

message abandonment, topic avoidance, circumlocution, approximation, using all

purpose words, using of nonlinguistic means, literal translation, code switching,

appealing for help, using fillers, using wrong terms, self correction, and repetition.

Foreignizing and word coinage could not be found; however, there were some

additional Communication Strategies, that is, using wrong terms, self correction and

repetition.

Table 2: Types of Communication Strategies Used by Subjects with

Low Communication Apprehension Level

Sub-ject

Types of Communication StrategiesMA TA C A UP UW UN LT CS AH UF SC R

1 2 1 - 12 4 1 1 2 - 3 19 3 82 - 3 1 6 1 - - - 3 - 7 6 13 4 5 2 6 - 2 - 1 - 1 9 2 54 - - 2 4 - 1 2 - 3 - 5 4 15 - 1 6 11 2 1 - - 2 1 4 4 156 1 - 2 6 - 1 3 - - 1 6 8 57 - 2 2 7 - 1 - - - 4 8 2 78 4 - - 9 - 3 - 2 4 - 11 5 59 - 3 1 7 - 1 - - - - 1 1 -10 - - - 6 - 2 3 1 - - 3 3 211 - - 2 12 - - 2 - 4 - 2 4 612 - 1 - 7 - 1 - - - - 1 4 213 - 3 - 12 - 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 614 - - 1 8 - 9 - - - - - 1 6

11

15 - 1 1 8 1 3 2 - - - 2 6 3Total 11 20 20 121 8 28 15 8 20 11 79 54 72

% 2.34 4.26 4.26 25.74 1.7 5.96 3.19 1.70 4.26 2.34 16.81 11.49 15.32

MA : Message Abandonment LT : Literal TranslationTA : Topic/Concept Avoidance CS : Code SwitchingC : Circumlocution AH : Appeal for HelpA : Approximation UF : Using FillersUP : Use of all Purpose Words SC : Self CorrectionUW : Using Wrong Terms R : RepetitionUN : Use of Nonlinguistic Means

Approximation is the Communication Strategy mostly used by these subjects.

Approximation got the percentage of 25.74%. The example of approximation found in

this study was the subject used the word mix to refer to ‘stir’, or the word cut to refer

to ‘slice’. It could be interpreted that these subjects used this strategy mostly because

they do not have enough vocabulary so that they just used words that had similar

meanings to the target words. In the example above, the word ‘slice’ actually contains

the action of cutting, although ‘slice’ has a more specific type of cutting; therefore,

this subject used the word ‘cut’ instead of ‘slice’. From this fact, it could be

concluded that they were also not afraid of making mistakes when retelling stories in

front of the listeners.

The next highest number of strategy besides approximation was using fillers with

the percentage of 16.81%. The example of using fillers in this study was “mm… mix

the potato”. Mm showed one of the examples of fillers. Repetition got the percentage

of 15.32%. The example of repetition was “you have to… you have to prepare the

potato”. The subjects used these strategies probably because they wanted to

communicate smoothly. They only repeated one or two words and used fillers to think

for a while, then continued their explanation. Thus, it could be concluded that these

subjects did not hesitate too much.

Self correction, as the additional strategy besides repetition, was the next

Communication Strategy after repetition. It got the total number of 54, or as much as

11.49%. The example, “he faces a test with his teacher… I mean with his driving

teacher”. This strategy was used possibly because they wanted to give clearer

explanation to the listeners. Similar to what happened to the subjects with high

communication apprehension level, by adding a word modifier these subjects wanted

to make clear the phrases or terms they already uttered. In the example above, the

12

words ‘his teacher’ actually were already understandable based on the context;

however, the subject thought it was not clear enough so that she added the word

‘driving’.

The fifth strategy used was the new strategy, using wrong terms, which got the

total number of 28, or equals 5.96%. The example: to refer to the word ‘boiled’, she

said “wait until it soften”. Since the subject did not know or possibly forgot the word

‘boiled’, she just tried to find a word that produced the same result as ‘boiled’ in the

sense that, if something is boiled it would be cooked and soft so that the word ‘boiled’

was changed into ‘soften’. It could be concluded that the subjects used this strategy

because they were confident enough to take risks by using wrong words as long as

they could explain the tasks fluently.

Code switching, topic avoidance, and circumlocution got the same percentages,

that is, 4.26%. The example of code switching was “he meets the… dilarang masuk

sign”; whereas the example of topic or concept avoidance was that a subject avoided

mentioning ‘crossroad’. In addition, the example of circumlocution was, to refer to

‘street lamp’, a subject described the characteristics or element of the object or word

by saying “the light which on the road”. Using non linguistic means was the next

strategy with the percentage of 3.19%.

Message abandonment and Appealing for Help got the same percentage of 2.34%.

The example of message abandonment was instead of saying ‘seasoning’,

‘roundabout’, and so on, a subject made her utterance unfinished. In appealing for

help strategy, the subjects asked for the English term of ‘menyalip’.

The low numbers of topic/concept avoidance and message abandonment

indicated that subjects with low level of Communication Apprehension did not avoid

explaining difficult words or sentences. Instead, they kept trying to explain them. In

addition, the low numbers of appealing for help showed that these subjects, since they

were not afraid of making mistakes, tried to overcome the difficult words or concepts

by finding other words or concepts that had similar meanings to the target words or

concepts instead of asking the listeners. Moreover, the low numbers of

circumlocution, using non linguistic means, using all purpose words, literal

translation, and code switching indicated that these strategies could not help them

much in retelling the message in English.

The least strategy was Using All Purpose phrase and Literal Translation,

which was 1.7% for each of them. Using All Purpose phrase, for example, a subject

13

used the words ‘what is it?’ in the middle of her utterance. It might be because these

subjects were confident enough to get the audience’s attention by uttering the words

“what is it?”; while in Literal Translation, for example, a subject used the term ‘do

not in’ to refer to ‘no enter’ sign.

Findings on Total Numbers of Types of Communication Strategies Used by

Subjects with High and Low Communication Apprehension Levels

Table 3: Total Numbers of Types of Communication Strategies Used by Subjects with High and Low Communication Apprehension Levels

Communication Strategies High Communication Apprehension Level

Low Communication Apprehension Level

1. Message Abandonment 14 112. Topic Avoidance 56 203. Circumlocution 17 204. Approximation 146 1215. Use of all Purpose Words - 86. Use wrong terms 45 287. Use non linguistic means 37 158. Literal Translation 6 89. Code Switching 44 2010. Appeal for Help 85 1111. Using Fillers 94 7912. Self Correction 79 5413. Repetition 196 72

Total 819 467Percentage 63.68% 36.31%

The total number of Communication Strategies used by subjects with high

communication apprehension level was 819, or equals 63.68% while the total number

of Communication Strategies used by subjects with low communication apprehension

level was 467, or equals 36.31%. Those findings indicated that subjects with high

level of communication apprehension used more strategies – though they did not use

the strategy of using all purpose words – than those with low communication

apprehension level, just as what was assumed in the statement of the problem.

Furthermore, it could be concluded that the subjects who had high level of

communication apprehension, either subjects of Speaking II or VI, were so nervous

and worried in retelling the stories in front of the listeners that they forgot things they

actually knew or they lacked vocabulary, hesitated too much, and made many errors;

so, to overcome that, they used many Communication Strategies to help them in

14

retelling the stories. In addition, the existence of the listeners whom they were not

familiar with might cause these subjects to be nervous and anxious because they

might think that they were being examined and monitored. In contrast, the subjects

who had low level of communication apprehension, either subjects of Speaking II or

VI, were confident enough in retelling the stories in front of the listeners that they did

not hesitate too much or were not afraid of taking risks so that they could concentrate

and focus on the tasks well, as a result, they used fewer Communication Strategies.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this study aims to find out type of Communication Strategies used and

mostly used by subjects with high level of Communication Apprehension and by

subjects with low level of Communication Apprehension. In addition, this study aims

to find out whether it is true or not that subjects with high level of Communication

Apprehension use more numbers of Communication Strategies than subjects with low

level of Communication Apprehension. The main theories which support this study

are the theory about anxiety and communication apprehension from Horwitz (1991)

and the theory about Communication Strategies from Dornyei (1995). The data are

collected from individual conversations of two tasks which are held in a created

classroom.

The writer finds twelve types of Communication Strategies used by subjects with

high level of Communication Apprehension, that is, message abandonment, topic

avoidance, circumlocution, approximation, using non linguistic means, literal

translation, code switching, appealing for help, using fillers, using wrong terms, self

correction, and repetition. Repetition, which is used to gain time to think, is the

Communication Strategies mostly used by subjects with high level of Communication

Apprehension. There are thirteen types of Communication Strategies used by subjects

with low level of Communication Apprehension, that is, message abandonment, topic

avoidance, circumlocution, approximation, using all purpose words, using non

linguistic means, literal translation, code switching, appealing for help, using fillers,

using wrong terms, self correction, and repetition. Here, the strategy mostly used by

subjects with low level of Communication Apprehension is approximation. Subjects

with high level of Communication Apprehension also use more numbers of

Communication Strategies than those with low level of Communication

Apprehension.

15

The higher percentage of repetition strategy used by subjects with high

communication apprehension level indicates that they were not confident enough in

retelling stories in front of the class; they hesitated too much. The higher percentage

of approximation strategy used by subjects with low communication apprehension

level indicates that they were confident enough in retelling stories in front of the class;

they were also brave enough to take risks by saying something which has close

meaning with what they intended to say. The higher numbers of Communication

Strategies used by subjects with high Communication Apprehension level compared

to those with low Communication Apprehension level indicates that subjects with

high level of Communication Apprehension are nervous, afraid of making mistakes,

hesitate too much, and make many errors.

At last, this study about Communication Apprehension related to Communication

Strategies is useful for students who learn English as second or foreign language

because students learning English, especially in classroom situation, are usually

worried, anxious and nervous to communicate. Knowing, understanding, and using

the types of Communication Strategies can help the students make their conversation

go smoothly and clearly. Through this study, it is expected that students who are

apprehensive or anxious too much in communicating using English can improve the

quality of their speaking performance. Furthermore, the writer hopes that this study

can give contribution to those who want to conduct further research such as finding

the reasons for having communication apprehension and finding the appropriate style

of teaching speaking in a foreign language classroom which can reduce students’

anxiety.

References:

Daly, J. (1991). Understanding communication apprehension: An introduction for language educators. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: from Theory and Research to Classroom Implication (pp.3-13). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of Communication Strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55-85.

Foss, K. A., & Reitzel, A. C. (1988). A relational model for managing second language anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), 437-454.

Horwitz, E. K. (1991). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign

16

language anxiety scale. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: from Theory and Research to Classroom Implication (pp. 37-39). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1991). Foreign language classroom anxiety. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: from Theory and Research to Classroom Implication (pp.27-36). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Mejias, H., Applbaum, R. L., Applbaum, S. J., & Trotter II, R. T. (1991). Oral communication apprehension and hispanics: an exploration of oral communication apprehension among Mexican American students in Texas. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: from Theory and Research to Classroom Implication (pp.27-36). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Oxford Dictionary. (1995). New York: Oxford University Press.

17